The intersection of politics, technology and theology since October, 2008

Welcome. I'm Phil. Professionally, I'm very much into IT, but also thrive on politics and theology. On many weekends I volunteer as a semi-professional camera director for a 9-campus church in metro Atlanta. These views are mine unless otherwise credited. Enjoy!

Obama may be everything good, or the promise Obama embodies may just be a figment of our own imagination.

Obama is the perfect vehicle for imagining hope, because he has almost no record. Obama is a blank canvas upon which we can paint our imagined hope. …

Barack Obama also reminds me of many lawyers I have dealt with in my career. He’s the smooth talking lawyer on TV who will get you “the settlement you deserve.” … He is a paper lawyer who fools only his own clients.

Americans are still looking for the answer, and if they don’t get it soon — or if they don’t like the answer — the president’s current political problems will look like a walk in the park.

Mr. Obama may be personally very appealing, but he has positioned himself all over the political map: the anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.

Mr. Obama is in danger of being perceived as someone whose rhetoric, however skillful, cannot always be trusted. He is creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it. …

Mr. Obama will deliver his State of the Union address Wednesday night. The word is that he will offer some small bore assistance to the middle class. But more important than the content of this speech will be whether the president really means what he says. Americans want to know what he stands for, where his line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation.

They want to know who their president really is.

No, Mr. President, the difference between 1994 and 2010 is not you — well, unless you don’t mind your 0-4 record of failures on the stump (e.g.: Virginia, New Jersey, Massachusetts and bringing the Olympic games to Chicago).

In fact, as TalkingPointsMemo points out, Indonesian officials are considering a petition — with 55,000 individuals in favor on Facebook — for a bronze statue in the country to be taken down after it had been erected just last month. Apparently even other countries have doubts as to the actual success of the President.

TPM also reports that former Arizona GOP Representative J.D. Hayworth — currently a challenger to Sen. John McCain in the Republican primary — continues to question the President’s eligibility (his first foray into the subject was via his radio show on KFYI — actual MP3 archive):

Perhaps a good sneak-peek of the SOTU might be “Art in Idaho’s” rendition.

Again, I accused you of nothing. I stated observations. I leave it to people’s imaginations what conclusions can be drawn from those observations.

Again, your observations were FALSE! And your cute little game of “I didn’t actually make the accusation” rings false to anybody with reading comprehension skills (which, in fairness, would leave you out).

I’m not saying that you have never killed anybody, but it’s interesting that you’ve never denied that you have. I leave it to peoples’ imaginations what conclusions can be drawn from those observations.

…And your cute little game of “I didn’t actually make the accusation” rings false to anybody with reading comprehension skills (which, in fairness, would leave you out).

I’m not saying that you have never killed anybody, but it’s interesting that you’ve never denied that you have. I leave it to peoples’ imaginations what conclusions can be drawn from those observations.

If only you could proverbially see yourself in the mirror when you say what you say.

This is truly the height of irony.

After all, it is the very opposition to questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility that have made mountains of castigations, accusations, and enough virtual ink to sink a ship of insinuations that, somehow, those of us who question this President are somehow racist, bigoted or otherwise so extreme that we don’t even deserve to possess an opinion.

Ah, yes, quite incidentally I am a constitutional bigot: I think the US Constitution is better than any other constitution out there

qwertyman said, “If it were me that had accused somebody of being another poster.”

Again, I accused you of nothing. I stated observations. I leave it to people’s imaginations what conclusions can be drawn from those observations. Among such conclusions might be a “tag team” operation, something that’s been suggested by others already. That’s one of many possible conclusions. But I stated NO conclusions. You’re the one who immediately assumed that I “accused” you of something. Guilty conscience, perhaps?

bystander said, “there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama was adopted. His sister has not said so. Every child under 18 is a dependent, whether step-child, natural child or adopted. Using someone’s name isn’t an indication of anything at all.”

On the other hand you’re a birther, so I expect that you will not acknowledge this fact and continue to imply that I am bystander and that I did not post yesterday.

Thank you for pretty much proving my point.

You really do have no capacity for shame, it seems like. If it were me that had accused somebody of being another poster and they came back and showed how completely wrong I was, I would be totally embarrassed and even apologize for saying something totally ridiculous.

But not you. Can’t admit that you were either lazy, unable to comprehend what you read or lying. For you, you’re going to double down and try to say that “it wasn’t all day.” It’s shameless, you should be embarrassed for yourself.

bystander says: “you demonstrate perfectly why Obama is so popular overseas, and why so many people are glad your side lost so badly.”

My side? America “lost so badly,” and so did the UK, in case you haven’t noticed.

In addition, as with here, he’s becoming less and less popular all around the world. Check the polls.

How do you feel about Obama not bowing to your Queen, when he bowed to nearly every other leader?

How do you feel about him drop-kicking Churchill’s bust right out of the Oval Office, asap?

How do you feel about him giving the Queen a recording of his own speeches as a gift?

How do you feel about him dissing Gordon Brown?

btw, how do you feel about Tony Blair’s recent testimony?

When the UK makes policy, do you think they should put the best interest of America first?

Concerning how people in some countries are sometimes affected by the policies of other countries, let’s consider UK policy before WWII. Neville Chamberlain. How did those policies work out for the world? MILLIONS died on account of those policies. We the People of the United States of America pulled your butts out of that particular fire–at great expense of our own blood and treasure.

I have an idea: How about these United States stop defending you folks, since you hate us so much. Without those expenses, we might be able to balance our budget.

You do know we’ve been protecting you since 1944, don’t you? Without us, you’d be goose-stepping and speaking German, or else you’d be goose-stepping and speaking Russian.

bystander said, “there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama was adopted. His sister has not said so. Every child under 18 is a dependent, whether step-child, natural child or adopted. Using someone’s name isn’t an indication of anything at all.”

This is complete speculation. Apparently you do not understand that if actual documents that claim to substantiate the President’s background were actually submitted to Court, that would go a long way in substantiating his alleged natural born citizenship — at least to me.

Of course, the birth certificate (or certification) issue is but one of two issues. The second one, necessarily, is Mr. Obama’s being born a British citizen.

Speculation? Just read the complaints! If you find a single complaint that wants nothing other than to have Obama submit a birth certificate to the court, let me know.

You yourself have an issue completely separate from your “doubts” about where the President was born. Do you think it’s a coincidence that there’s pretty much a 1:1 ration between people who have had doubts about where Obama was born and about whether or not the child of a US citizen born on US soil is a natural born citizen?

This is complete speculation. Apparently you do not understand that if actual documents that claim to substantiate the President’s background were actually submitted to Court, that would go a long way in substantiating his alleged natural born citizenship — at least to me.

Of course, the birth certificate (or certification) issue is but one of two issues. The second one, necessarily, is Mr. Obama’s being born a British citizen.

Speculation? Just read the complaints! If you find a single complaint that wants nothing other than to have Obama submit a birth certificate to the court, let me know.

I am aware of most of the complaints; they speak for themselves, and if I recall correctly, not all complaints wish for only a birth certificate to be submitted to Court.

Nevertheless, I already qualified my comment by saying “at least to me,” which means (it should go without saying), “this is my opinion” and nobody else’s.

You yourself have an issue completely separate from your “doubts” about where the President was born. Do you think it’s a coincidence that there’s pretty much a 1:1 ration between people who have had doubts about where Obama was born and about whether or not the child of a US citizen born on US soil is a natural born citizen?

I’m not sure I completely understand what you were trying to say, but I can certainly comment that having a bona fide document handed over to the Court (at this point in time) would give significant credit to the concept that Mr. Obama was actually born in Hawaii (I am reasonably sure on this point but remain open for doubt). Then the next step would be to determine whether or not his being born simultaneously a British citizen (if he was born in Hawaii) would officially disqualify him.

Black Lion: there is most certainly evidence that he was adopted. His sister once said that her father adopted him. He was mentioned as Lolo’s dependent when his mother divorced Lolo. He used the name Soetoro when he attended school in Indonesia. He was listed as a citizen OF Indonesia at that time. There is plenty of evidence that he was adopted, although not at birth. Later on.

… there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama was adopted. His sister has not said so. Every child under 18 is a dependent, whether step-child, natural child or adopted. Using someone’s name isn’t an indication of anything at all.
____________________________________________________________________
Bystander, MGB is reaching. There has never been any proof that President Obama was adopted. And as far as his sister, how about linking us to some sort of article that show us where she said that Obama was adopted. Because I have never heard of that. Or link us to the article where their is proof that an adoption took place. Come on, you made the allegation, so lets see some proof.

[The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,]

The Answer, Delivered by Justice Gray

[The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.]

“determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion,”

Now leftists can spin this anyway they want, it says what it says. Unless Steve Dunham Obowma turns out to be the adopted from chinese subjects permanently domiciled in the US this case does not help his cause.

All of this is moot anyway, he was born a British Subject and thus not a Natural Born Citizen.
____________________________________________________________________
Really? I guess you missed the more important part of the ruling…

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

“The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

That line “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens” seems pretty specific to me. Unless you are now going to argue that he was not born in HI….

However the state of IN 3 Justice Appelate Court said the following…So it seems that real judges don’t exactly agree with you….But why are we not surprised….

“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

“The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

Thank you for acknowledging the Wong Kim Ark decision does in fact say that a person born within the borders of the United States is a US citizen at birth regardless of the status of his parents. Of course, the case was specifically about a person, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in the US to Chinese citizens. But it is truly disingenuous to try to argue the decision did not extend to anyone in the same circumstance and I believe you know it.

“All of this is moot anyway, he was born a British Subject and thus not a Natural Born Citizen.”
Typical birther argument pattern. You spent days trying to argue that Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because both his parents weren’t US citizens. When proven wrong, you try to ignore you’ve been pwned and instead recycle another old, stale, debunked talking point. When someone re-debunks that one, you’ll go get another one until you eventually circle back to Wong Kim Ark, like you were never proven wrong.

At today’s prayer breakfast, the President called you out. He said “But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or for that matter, my citizenship.”

MGB says:
February 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Black Lion said, “You site [sic] state of HI law. Again the only one I found was 338. YOu believe that state of HI statute 338-5 allows one to obtain such documents based on a statement of one relative only without any corroborative documents from any hospital. Additionally you believe that HI statute 338-17 allows foreign born children of HI residents to get HI birth certificates.

I will respond the same way I responed before. First of all, 338-17 came into play in 1981, and merely allows such children to get HI birth certificates showing the location of their birth to be in a foreign country.”
*********

You yourself say that 338 was enacted in 1981. I don’t “believe” anything about it, except that it doesn’t apply to Obama circa 1961. But it is very similar to the territorial laws. So, are we to believe that such a concept was in effect prior to statehood, disappeared between statehood and 1981, and then came back again? That defies logic.

Similar to what law exactly? Can yo cite that specific law where it says that someone that is born in another country can get a Hawaiian BC that says HI? You like to point to these territorial laws but never cite the specific section of the law. I am saying that the law did not exist before 1981. Can you prove to us that it did?

A person CAN be born in a foreign country if a foundling or if adopted by Hawaiian residents. The pliace of birth will say Hawaii on the Hawaiian birth certificate. Ditto if an informant files an affidavit with false or incomplete information.

Not quite. A foundling would be assumed to be born in HI, ergo why they would have an HI BC. You still need to find us a territorial law which allows foreign births to be registered in HI as a HI birth at the time of Obama’s birth. You have not been able to show us that. You supposedly point to some section regarding foundlings, as if that is germane to the situation. Basically you are engaging in a ridiculous circular argument in order to somehow support your ridiculous contention.
__________________________

Black Lion says, “As to 338-5, even if Obama’s location of birth were determined through this statute, once again, Honolulu becomes Obama’s legal place of birth. Notwithstanding unfounded speculations as to foreign birth.”
******

Interesting, now you seem to say that “legal place of birth,” even if not true, is acceptable to meet the requirements of the Constitution. I don’t think so. IF the place of birth was fraudulently reported to a health dept., which then erroneously placed that place of birth on a birth certificate, that does not make that person born in the USA if he was born in another country. And it certainly doesn’t make him a natural born citizen. Fraud committed by someone else doesn’t negate the TRUTH. So let’s just say an affidavit was filed but not followed up upon, and then years later the person has nothing to prove his place of birth–the deadline for filing the supplementary information is long gone and the trail of evidence is cold. Tough luck.

Yes and if pigs could fly then they would be birds. So what. You would somehow have to prove that said fraud was possible, then prove that said fraud happened. The state if HI has safeguards in place to prevent such a scenario, so once they issue a COLB that states that the city of birth was HI, they are very confident that they have the documented proof to support that contention. Fraud is always possible but not always probable. That is why the law requires proof. You throw around words like fraud implying you have something other than you wild imagination to support your theory. Until you do the COLB stands. Dr. Fukino’s statement stands.
__________________________________

Black Lion said, “And just in case you want to bring up the ridiculous theory about late or amended filings because of the phrase “vital records”, The COLB shows that Obama’s Birth certificate was filed soon after his birth and thus again form prima facie evidence against a late or amended filing.”
*******

You talk in circles. The COLB is not proof or evidence of anything. IF it were presented to a court of law, it MIGHT be prima facie evidence IF it were determined to be so under Hawaiian statutes. IF it did not meet their criteria or timeframes, for example for the filing of supplementary information, then it would not be prima facie evidence.

Not might. Is. You forget the burden of proof is on yoou to prove that it is not prima facia evidence. Unless you can provide HI statutes that support your theory regarding criteria and timeframes, then again you are just speculating. If I recall the court accepted the COLB as evidence in one of Orly’s losses. They seemed to be OK with the COLB being posted.

That COLB, if legitimate, could be based upon incomplete information that was never affirmed by supplementary information. It would still have generated a birth announcement, although not based upon data accepted and affirmed by the State of Hawaii. btw, the birth announcement announces a birth. No place of birth mentioned. It’s a registration of a birth at the Hawaiian DOH. It would have read the same, even if he were born elsewhere and if the birth certificate said Canada, Kenya, whatever.

The COLB if not legitmate. I had to change your wording because again you have no evidence to support that it is not legitimate, so it is assumed to be legitimate. And the COLB states that the brith city was Honolulu, HI. Yes the birth announcement infomed people of a birth, the vital records from HI that Leo received showed that they had records of a birth of a baby boy named Barack Obama II on 8/4/61. The announcements stated that a boy was born to on that date. The state of HI states that Barack Obama was BORN in HI. So he was born in HI. Anyplace else is wishful thinking.

He continues to refuse to present the ACTUAL paper document to a court. The Hawaiian DOH cannot say what the online images of the COLB represent. The DOH pointedly will not affirm that they produced a COLB for him in 2007 or provide the receipt for its purchase, which they ought to do under Hawaiian law. All these facts cause one to pause and wonder what he’s hiding. Something. Why?

Good for him. If I were him I wouldn’t produce a darn thing. Why? Until he is legally compelled to why should he do anything? It won’t stop anything. The so called theories are so ridiculous that no one with any sense belives them. No court has requested the COLB. To quote Napoleon, “never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. So why help the people suing you? He is a lawyer so he is familar with the rules of evidence and how the court system works. He knows that no court is going to grant any of these ridiculous motions are rule in the favor of any of the plaintiffs. The state of HI is beholded to privacy laws. If you don’t like that get the privacy laws changed. Hey, lets make it so that no one’s personal records are private. So in that instance you will be able to get whatever info you want. And again the DOH has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in HI.

What Fukino said is perfectly in line with a person who has multiple pieces of paper (aka vital records), one of which might be an affidavit that may not have ever been authenticated by the state. The preliminary birth certificate would have been issued, pending supplementary information. If that never was forthcoming, then the original paperwork would remain and would PURPORT to verify that he was born in Hawaii, when perhaps he was not and that fact was never proven to the satisfaction of the Hawaiian DOH. On the other hand, these vital records could include adoption papers, a sealed foreign birth certificate, foundling paperwork, paternity records, etc.

Wow, rampant speculation. Again no proof, but there may be evidence that might be something. If only the law worked that way. “Your Honor, I know he is guilty. If you just allow me to search his house I know I can find evidence. I have no proof but some evidence might be there.” Anyone know how quickly you would be laughed out of a courtroom? What people find amazing is that no other President was ever questioned about place of birth. His word was suffcient. But now not only is the word of the President not enough, the word of the state of HI where they say “Born in HI” is not enough. So in this situation, there is no proof of birth anywhere else, the President says he was born in HI, the state says that the President was born in HI, but that is not enough because there is some possible law out there that might have allowed the possibly of a birth elsewhere.

The complexity of this issue is WHY it needs to be examined by a court of law. There are cases in a court of law. IF what he claims is true, then he should have no problem with presenting these vital records to the court to PROVE what he says is true.

That is where you are wrong. You automatically assume guilt, court assume innocence. He shoudn’t have to prove anything. You are the ones that are not satisfied, so you need to prove that what he says is not true. If you are so sure that he is not telling the truth, it should be easy for you to produce evidence that proves your point. The fact that there is none should be a hint.

The number of mistakes in Black Lion’s recent comments are one reason why I suspect he’s a committee.

Mistakes? Not quite. If I recall you are the one that could not cite the specific sections of the so called law that you are referenced. I did. The fact that you cannot support any of your allegations is why I suspect it has nothing to do with eligibility and more to do with personal hatred of the President.

Black Lion: there is most certainly evidence that he was adopted. His sister once said that her father adopted him. He was mentioned as Lolo’s dependent when his mother divorced Lolo. He used the name Soetoro when he attended school in Indonesia. He was listed as a citizen OF Indonesia at that time. There is plenty of evidence that he was adopted, although not at birth. Later on.

… there is no evidence whatsoever that Obama was adopted. His sister has not said so. Every child under 18 is a dependent, whether step-child, natural child or adopted. Using someone’s name isn’t an indication of anything at all.

Your point 2 is obviously false. It was a mind-boggling accusation for you to make, especially since you could have checked back a few pages to see that.

Accusing people of being fake or having multiple personalities is certainly not polite either.

I accused nobody of anything. I expressed my own opinions and noted interesting details. Some people here seem to have multiple personalities. That’s what I’m saying.

Your opinion was that me and bystander might be the same person posting from very different IP addresses. Your opinion is that Black Lion is several different people. Your opinions are accusations against the integrity and identity of at least three posters.

No, bystander, I’m suggesting that he’s presented the same kind of evidence all along that he “presented” to be POTUS. He hasn’t presented ANYTHING to prove he’s eligible to be POTUS. He hasn’t proved he’s a natural born citizen. He can’t because he’s not, first of all. His father was not a US citizen. I would like to see him present to a court of law the actual paper document that supposedly was scanned and put on line and was supposedly photographed by FactCheck blog staffers. That’s all I want to see. THAT SPECIFIC PAPER presented to a court of law. It wasn’t. There were opportunities. IF it exists and is legitimate, then it would have ended the case and saved Obama and the taxpayers lots of money. So why won’t he present THAT specific paper?

… he hasn’t been asked by any court to present it. If he is, he will. And how will that solve the issue for you as you seem to believe he can’t be a nbc because his father was not a citizen. You are of course totally wrong – but how will the bc solve the matter for you in your mistaken belief?